This is one scary, scary animation… It may seem exaggerating and a bit on the cheesy (or sprout submarine combo) side but it is certainly my impression that things are moving in that direction.
via Dan Gillmore and cross-posted from White Rose
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Personal data out of controlJuly 22nd, 2004 |
 28 comments to Personal data out of control |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
…a bit on the cheesy (or sprout submarine combo) side….
What?
Scary in Europe, maybe, ’cause you’re close to it.
This must be pledge week like on PBS, where they’re trolling for dollars.
I notice that the ACLU mistakenly conflate government getting your data with the private sector.
A free market will allow those who don’t want data to be minded to avoid it.
There are actually already a number of privacy services where your identity never reaches companies with which you interact.
Either way, one of the biggest applications of data mining is targeted advertising. Rather than scare customers away with a fee for double-meat pizza, it is more likely the pizza company will begin to realize that you like meat, and give you a coupon off for their triple meat pizza to keep you a happy customer.
Notice that one large reason why this animation is negative is because of the health-care-plan issues. If we moved from a model of insurance, to one of medical savings accounts and a cash-per-service system, there wouldn’t really be “insurance” for basic health needs.
The idea of a “care provider” goes from an insurance company to a hospital such a payment system, and the hospital, looking for profit, might rather you get the tastier and unhealthier pizza.
Thats scary. i had a dream about something like that a few weeks ago.
In this dream I was in my local supermarket and they refused to sell me fried chicken because it might cause health problems. They had acces to my personal health info.
The government would fine them if they did sell me the chicken.
This is weird…
Whoa.. hold on. This is a good thing! Except, as pointed out above, the national healthcare thing — but that’s the government, not private sector.
Look. If they know you like meat, they’ll either give you coupons for meat pizzas (if it’s high margin) or coupons for other pizzas (if meat is low margin).
If you truly DO live in a high risk area (which is easily determined WITHOUT private information because you have to give them your address to deliver) then OF COURSE the pizza driver should be compensated more for it.
Third, lots of that information (medical data, travel information, library) is ridiculously inflated. The ACLU would give you the idea that companies have access to this complete record on you. Working at the company that provides the majority of that type of data, I can tell you that isn’t true.
Data and databases cost money. Why would a company pay the money to access your travel information (owned by a travel company, which no doubt has its own privacy policies) if it didn’t help their bottom line? The healthcare information is already protected by the extremely aggressive HIPAA legislation.
As Ivan points out above, customer data is immensely beneficial to the customer. The only time personalized information ISN’T beneficial is when the government has it — because the government doesn’t sell you pizza — they arrest, spy on and regulate you.
This article shows the benefits of “The Database Nation.”
http://www.reason.com/0406/fe.dm.database.shtml
There’s a quote in there from our Chief Privacy Officer in there as well.
This is just a panic ad, just like you see on local news: “When Doors Attack!” This is fear-mongering at its lowest levels — with the exception of the national healthcare issue (which we can all see in the trend to make food providers responsible for their cost to the national healthcare system).
I am disappointed that it was linked to here.
The issue of personal data is interesting. The question is when does information obtained during a fair exchange become an exploitable resource, and therefore property? When the seller gains information during the exchange, is it theirs to do with what they like (the buyer has information too, of which they can likey sell, namely their opinion of the product). Does the selling of information by the seller about the buyer’s buying habits need to be explicitely stated in the contract? Should the government be empowered to force sellers not to exploit the resources at hand?
I can certainly see that the government collecting and exploiting data is a fearsome prospect. But the individual, contracting freely, can certainly find some way to contract iwith business, so as to limit the information that is gathered (for instance I refuse to get one of the ‘discount’ cards offered by my local grocery stores, I don’t think it’s anyones business what brand of peanut butter I buy).
The question remains, by an operational definition, the information is valuable or there wouldn’t be a ‘market’ for it, and when should Force be used to prevent people from selling information to other interested parties? If it concerns one so much, demand, as part of the contract, that no information will be sold, or demand consideration back in the form of a discount. I don’t necessarily think we need a boilerplate Law to say it can never be (unless it is the State itself, they should never be allowed to sell information about the citizenry on the market as my State (Wisconsin) is in the process of doing).
Hmmmm…
After reading the Reason article (thanks, Brian!), how about the following compromise: If the government wants to obtain information from a privately owned database, that query must be 1) limited to a specific person, and 2) subject to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. This would allow the private benefits of databases to continue to flow while guarding against abuses of those databases by the government. (Of course, this does nothing to solve the question of application to foreign citizens, or any national security/intelligence exception…)
I am not a great fan of the ACLU (selective defenders of civil rights, except the right to defend yourself that is) but just because something is (in this case theoretically) done by the private sector that does not mean it is automatically just peachy.
I sure are hell do not want to be data mined and profiled by the people I do business with and I go to some lengths to make sure that I am not (with mixed results). Anyone who has a reflexive trust in business (particularly Big Business) not to abuse the power that comes from too much information on you is as foolish as those who trust Government. It was large American companies who fell over themselves to provide the Chinese state with the Great Internet Wall of China and a nice IT structure to support its apparatus of internal repression. Who want to trust companies with vast amounts of data on you? Foolish. Foolish.
The dystopian world seen in that article is truly nightmarish and all together believable, and of course once that sort of panoptic environment is in place, unless it is constantly challenged (and frankly attacked), the state will most assuredly follow to ensure you are acting in what it sees as ‘society’s’ bests interests (which means its own).
…and note that the first thing the ‘call’ does in the animation after detecting your phone number is access your National ID Number… business and state working hand in glove for their benefit, but not, methinks, yours.
As a Brit, I find the habit of US organisations and businesses demanding a national insurance number at the drop of a hat simultaneously intrusive and disconcerting (it doesn’t happen in the UK).
That and the free and easy access US businesses have to a private individual’s financial data (knowing how much mortgage you owe, for example) doesn’t give me any confidence at all in the supposedly benign nature of big businesses.
This is not to say that we don’t have at least equal problems in the UK – but given our record of capitulation to statist control, you somehow don’t expect it of the USA and it comes as a great shock to encounter it.
For that reason, I wholeheartedly agree with Perry de Havilland. Putting one’s trust in big business any more than big government is foolish – no, make that insane. Neither is your friend.
” Putting one’s trust in big business any more than big government is foolish – no, make that insane. Neither is your friend.”
I agree — but I have more trust in big business than government (especially once government isn’t big enough to be worth bribing), but that’s a different point.
As the Reason article I linked states, all companies that take your personal information have privacy agreements, all of which are voluntary. In most cases, the data they compile are beneficial to you, the customer, but as you point out, that is your choice.
If you don’t want to give the pizza company your address, that’s fine, but you’ll have to go pick up the pizza. If you don’t want to give your personal information to a company, then don’t do business with them, or use a company that has a more stringent (mutually agreeable contract) privacy policy.
Frankly, I LIKE that most companies I deal with know all kinds of things about me. It gets me better credit, books that I want, and coupons and discounts. Nothing they have gotten from me can be used to harm me — unless it’s the government, and then it’s a completely different story. But, as you say, it’s your choice!
As long as it’s “big business” they can’t force you to give them the information. That “national id” number is obviously a government policy, not a business one. Trust me, businesses don’t need national ids, because any good data mining corporation already has unique id for you and your household. 🙂
I think we’re getting caught up in the difference between business, business&government, and goverment.
Since the government operates based on force, them having information of this type IS scary. Businesses do not, so them having that info doesn’t bother me. Plus, you have to agree to give it to them. When they look up your credit rating, it’s because you agreed to have that information posted when you got the loan. If there’s a LAW saying that you HAVE to post the information, then that is wrong. But otherwise, it’s part of the contract you signed with the lending agency.
Brian Moore writes:
“But otherwise, it’s part of the contract you signed with the lending agency.”
But did you have a choice?
To say that government relies on ‘force’ is true but misleading. Businesses use force of a different kind than slamming you in jail for refusing to co-operate – but it is still force, none the less if you have no choice but to comply with their demands.
to GCooper:
I guess I’m confused by what you mean.
My definition of contract implies that you have a choice to accept it or not. If you want the goods or services the business offers, then you need to sign a contract with them to provide it. If part of that contract says “give us this personal info, and, by the way, we can publicize it” (which is exactly what many contracts say, especially for a lending agency) then you need to weigh the cost/benefits of such a contract, and the choose (or not) to sign it.
Businesses DO have ways to influence you into doing things, but I’d say that refusing to provide you with my goods or services is not “force.” I don’t see how you “have no choice but to comply with their demands.”
Please accept my apology if I have misunderstood you.
Brian Moore writes:
“Businesses DO have ways to influence you into doing things, but I’d say that refusing to provide you with my goods or services is not “force.” I don’t see how you “have no choice but to comply with their demands.””
I apologise if I’ve made myself unclear.
I suppose it depends how you define the word ‘force’. I’m using a looser definition than the literal one of: ‘do what we say of you get locked up’.
My contention is that refusing to provide a service unless the customer hands over intimate personal information when it is a service most people need (for example, a mortgage) and (this is the important bit) where there is no effective alternative constitutes a different, but equally coercive, force.
We are probably defining ‘force’ in dfferent ways, but that’s how I see it.
i LOVE the surcharge and coumentation for the assumed risk of eating double-meat.
anyone ever try doing sales? i learned long ago that you can corner almost anyone the right way, and then they say “oh… ok…” every time. Leaves you feeling quite the pig, but it does work.
Sorry, no. This is absolutely insane! I love samizdata and its contributors, but this makes Michael Moore’s stuff look real.
Actually, I order pizza online from Pizza Hut and they do know my address and my last order. I consider this a great convenience.
I will complain when government adds a charge onto the pizza, and I will fight the National ID number, but I am not staying awake worrying about this frightening film from the ACLU.
Worse still, the ACLU will use this to scare people out of voting for President Bush. Disagree with him where you will, he is still a better friend to liberty than Senator Kerry.
Agreed. Cheap ACLU scare tactics.
As other commentators have pointed out, the ‘scary’ part of this animation is the fact that the government is in control of all healthcare and has the power to levy fees on people who aren’t eating healthy food.
Bush’s TIA program doesn’t inspire, but Mr. Kerry would bring us closer to a world of nationalized healthcare and health food naziism than Bush ever would.
I could imagine a Euroweenie country putting surcharges on Internet access accounts for those customers who have “unhealthy” surfing habits. I wonder how much the “malcontent blog surcharge” would be?
Lumina T writes:
“Bush’s TIA program doesn’t inspire, but Mr. Kerry would bring us closer to a world of nationalized healthcare and health food naziism than Bush ever would.”
I get the feeling that this comment exemplifies the difference between the two sides of the Atlantic.
For commentators in the UK, the ACLU doesn’t come with the political baggage it does for Americans. Had this warning come from, say, a Left wing British think-tank then perhaps our reactions might have been as relentlessly dismissive.
Of course, it’s nice when the pizza firm remembers where you live, or offers you coupons, but that isn’ t the point – few things in life are either all good or all bad.
It is when the unholy alliance of business and government takes place (even if it is due to the latter coercing the former) that it becomes sinister. There are plenty of historical precedents for this, so I’m mildly surprised that people are sceptical about the possibility of it happening again.
At that stage, the more data held about individuals, the easier they are to predict, control and rule. A perfect example is about to happen in the UK where the government is proposing a ‘road charging’ system based on satellite tracking of private vehicles.
Surely you don’t need to be a paranoid fantasist to see the dangerous implications of that?
Over the top? Yes.
Loony ACLU ravings that can be dismissed? Not quite, here’s why: pizza delivery (and other) databases are already used by collection agencies to track people down. Including collections for at least one State govt. (IIRC is was Miss. or Mo. that’s using one of them).
They get higher hit percentages on pizza delivery databases than any other. No, the company involved in the specific arrangment I’m thinking of WOULDN’T divulge which companies they were buying data from.
And guess what, the State that’s using the contractor has, Bingo! realized that they can also cross-check people the collection agent finds for criminal wants and warrants. They are sticking with only using address data initially obtained to collect on civil fines to later bring in folks wanted on criminal charges. So they are already thinking about ways around the 4th Amendment. Getting the data initially from a non-criminal matter let’s them (for now) do an end run around needing a warrant for it.
So this flash animation isn’t QUITE so far fetched.
GCooper —
It should. They babble about civil liberties but with very few exceptions, their intent appears to reduce liberty and, often, inhance license.
GCooper and Brian Moore:
I think I can resolve the force issue. What GCooper is referring to when he says, “where there is no effective alternative,” is the tyranny of the majority, not a problem with “big business” or private enterprise, per se. If virtually all of my fellow citizens are prepared to hand over personal information in order to obtain a product or service, then the market won’t provide an alternative.
Since it’s always easier to lobby the government than to change minds or “raise consciousness” among the citizenry, we get the regulatory state. But if you believe in libertarian values you pretty much have to fight the tyranny of the majority person-by-person. Trying to restrict contractual agreements between consenting parties, where no third party is harmed, isn’t a principled stance for a libertarian, even with the best of intentions.
And, no, the tyranny of the majority does not constitute harm to a third party!
Uncle Bill writes:
“It should. They babble about civil liberties but with very few exceptions, their intent appears to reduce liberty and, often, inhance license.”
Why? It is an American orgaisation with a US agenda. How worried are you by the UK’s Lib-Dems?
Believe me, we have our own loonies to worry about.
Ted McHenry writes:
“Trying to restrict contractual agreements between consenting parties, where no third party is harmed, isn’t a principled stance for a libertarian, even with the best of intentions.”
Why do you believe no third party is harmed? There is clear potential for harm.
From a libertairian perspective, I’m quite happy with the concept of volenti non fit injuria between individuals (even if the courts aren’t). But given the potential of data mining to lead to absolute statist control (be that a governmental or corporate state), I consider action against it the lesser of two evils.
I’m still baffled by the apparent willingness of people to give businesses the automatic benefit of the doubt. It’s a touching faith but I believe it to be quite misplaced.
I hope one of the civil liberties ACLU protects is property. Cause they just violated it. Check out this parody made much before ACLU’s flash animation: http://www.mycen.com.my/duasen/150703_mykad.html
Proof? Check out the similarities between the National ID on the flash movie and the MyKad number on TV Smith’s.
Blatant ripoff. No credit too.
Hey, how come Libertarianism died and no one told me. “I don’t like the terms of this contract. Better get the state to dictate terms to my liking.”
GCooper:
It’s not a question of belief. I said,
If you can demonstrate, in a specific case, that a third party has been harmed, then you have a case for some sort of intervention — presumably civil. Where there is no harm, you have no case for intervention. I’m neither predicting there will be third party harm nor predicting there won’t be. The topic is far too broad for such a generalization. I’m merely stating what I believe to be axiomatic, which is that libertarian principles preclude intervening in a free contractual relationship between competent parties unless a third party is harmed by that specific contractual relationship (or other identical relationships).
Now, what do libertarians do if they’re certain that a given kind of contractual relationship will — or is highly likely to — result in third party harm? Obviously, they refrain from entering into such a relationship, and try to convince others to do likewise. But can they, in good concience as libertarians, try to prevent (by force of law) other competent persons from freely making that choice? I’d have to say no, since there’s no way they can truly be certain until it has happened at least once.
Obviously, there are situations where this isn’t quite so clear cut. For example, some would argue that an abortion is a contractual relationship between a patient and a doctor that harms a third party, while others would argue it’s not. Without arguing the merits of either position, I feel safe in saying that particular situation lies beyond the scope of the kinds of contractual relationships we’re discussing (such as providing your national insurance number to a lending institution).